To those who defend Book of Mormon racism

[_LDSToronto]

The usual myrmidons have raced to the defense of The Book of Mormon - "How dare someone claim the inspired tome incites racism against African Americans!"

Sycophants, hearken. Racism is racism, whether directed against Africans, Asians, Europeans, or First Nations Peoples! Redirecting the object of The Book of Mormon's racist verses does not lessen the blow.

Perhaps I'm naïve, but I must say I'm a little surprised by the usual defenders and the idiocy of their argument. It's sickening, you know?

If you have the stomach for f-bombs (and lot's of them), listen to this Tim Minchin song. Its aimed at Catholics who support a Pope who protects pedophile priests; use your imagination and extrapolate to Mormons who defend a racist volume of scripture.

H.

[_badseed]

Ya. Personally I'd argue that the idea that dark skin was the mark God placed on the unrighteous when they were cursed by Him is through out early Mormonism and certainly in the Book of Mormon. People can try to dismiss the issue when a critic quotes the wrong book of LDS scripture but it doesn't change anything. This entirely offensive and clearly racist idea was and still is part of Mormonism.

[_Sethbag]

The early LDS believed that blacks (Africans, to the pedants) were cursed. They (Joseph, either alone or in concert with whomever) put the idea of dark skin as a curse in the Book of Mormon. The fact that the Book of Mormon was specifically talking about the Lamanites doesn't really matter, because this was merely a borrowing of the prior theme of dark skin as God's curse, or mark of God's curse to the pedants, from the Bible.

That black author mentioned in the other thread was technically wrong about the Book of Mormon's specific claims. He's not wrong, in principle, to see the application of the theme of dark skin as curse from God as a slam against him too, however. It's clearly related.

[_angsty]

Thank you!

Honestly, defending something so obviously indefensible just makes defenders appear to be tolerant of racism and/or ignorant of how deeply offensive and wrong it is. The defensive strategy of quibbling over whether a critic got the details right, while ignoring the broader issue (that the racism is there in the book, and history of the church, for any competent english speaker to read), doesn't do the cause any favors.

[_tapirrider]

What if someone sold children's action figures of Cain before the curse and after the curse? What if Mormon parents bought these toys of before and after to teach their children that Cain's skin turned dark because of the wrong he did? And what if these toys were understood to be why Black people are Black?

Where is the outrage when this happens to the American Indian?

Lemuel (white) before.
http://lehi.com/product_info.php?cPath= ... o9jviobmt6

Lemuel (dark skin) after. This happened because he did not choose the right.
http://lehi.com/product_info.php?produc ... o9jviobmt6

How can Mormons possibly argue that the Huffington Post article was wrong because the Book of Mormon does not apply to Blacks?

[_Runtu]

There's the rub: you can dismiss the words of the prophets and apostles as opinion shaped by their culture, but you can't just wave off scripture.

[_Sethbag]

There's the rub: you can dismiss the words of the prophets and apostles as opinion shaped by their culture, but you can't just wave off scripture.

Sure you can. I engaged a few years ago on MAD a discussion of some anochronism problems related to steel and swords and whatnot and the Jaredites, and the answer from at least one apologist was that the Jaredite story may well have just been Nephite mythology. Wow.